SRI. NARAYANAPPA vs SRI. KRISHNAPPA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54818
RSA No. 2510 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010503412017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ST
DATED THIS THE 1 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.2510 OF 2017 (DEC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. NARAYANAPPA
S/O. DODDAMUNIYAPPA,
SINCE DECEASED
BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES.
1. SRI. B.N.SRINIVAS
S/O NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
2. SRI. VENKATESHAPPA
S/O NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.
BOTH ARE R/AT
BELLAMBURI VILLAGE
HOLUR HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 101.
3. SMT. NAGAMMA
D/O NARAYANAPPA
W/O CHANDRAPPA.G
AGED ABOT 54 YEARS
R/AT DODDAKURUBARAHALLI
BANGARPET TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 126.
(AMENDED AS PER COURT
ORDER DATED: 14.07.2023)
…APPELLANTS
Digitally
signed by
VANDANA S
Location:
High Court
of
Karnataka
(BY SRI. B VISWESWARAIAH, ADVOCATE)
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54818
RSA No. 2510 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010503412017
AND:
SRI. KRISHNAPPA
S/O. NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
R/AT BELLAMBURI VILLAGE,
HOLUR HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. UMESH B N, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.08.2017 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.36/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, KOLAR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.11.2012 PASSED IN
OS.NO.335/1997 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE,
KOLAR.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION , THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
The appellant was the plaintiff in O.S.No.335/1997 filed by
him against the respondent – defendant for declaration of title,
recovery of possession and other reliefs in relation to the suit
schedule immovable property. The said suit having been
contested by the defendant, the Trial Court proceeded to dismiss
the suit vide judgment and decree dated 30.11.2012, which was
challenged by the appellant – plaintiff in R.A.No.36/2013, which
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54818
RSA No. 2510 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010503412017
was also dismissed by the First Appellate Court by confirming by
judgment and decree of the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the impugned
judgments and decrees of both the Courts, appellant is before this
Court by way of the present appeal.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the
plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit specifically contending that he
was the owner and in possession and enjoyment of the suit
schedule immovable property, which was described as land
bearing Sy.No.1/1 measuring 1 acre 37 guntas out of a total extent
of 3 acres 4 guntas of Bellambauri Village, Holur Hobli, Kolar Taluk
as described in the schedule to the plaint. It was contended that
the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property vide registered
Sale Deed dated 02.07.1984 executed in his favour by
C.H.Shanthkumar, who was the brother of C.H.Venkataravanappa
against whom the defendant filed an application dated 01.03.1974
in Form No.7 before the Land Tribunal, Kolar, in LRF
No.1198/1974-75 claiming occupancy rights in respect of Sy.No.90
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54818
RSA No. 2510 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010503412017
measuring 20 guntas in the aforesaid village. On 16.10.1981, the
Land Tribunal, Kolar having rejected the said application of the
defendant, he preferred W.P.No.2975/1982, which was allowed by
this Court vide final order dated 14.08.2024 whereby this Court
remitted the matter back to the Land Tribunal for reconsideration
afresh and in accordance with law. After remand, the Land
Tribunal passed a common order granting occupancy rights in
favour of the defendant in respect of the suit schedule property
bearing Sy.No.1/1B measuring 1 acre 37 guntas as well as other
lands bearing Sy.Nos.98/24, 97/7, 97/12, 119/6, 111/6 and 111/9 of
the said Bellambauri Village, Holur Hobli, Kolar Taluk. The said
order was challenged by the appellant in DLRA 39/1987 which was
allowed by the District Land Reforms Appellate Authority, which set
aside the grant of occupancy rights in favour of the defendant in
respect of the suit schedule property. Aggrieved by the said order,
the defendant preferred LRRP No.2915/1988 before this Court,
which dismissed the revision petition vide order dated 13.06.1996.
In this context, it is pertinent to note that the appellant herein was
arrayed as respondent No.7 in the said revision petition before this
Court. The defendant challenged the said order dated 13.06.1996
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54818
RSA No. 2510 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010503412017
passed by this Court in LRRP No.2915/1988 by approaching the
Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.14615/1996 which came to be
allowed by the Apex Court vide final order dated 18.11.1996
whereby the aforesaid orders of this Court as well as the Appellate
Authority were set aside and the aforesaid order of the Land
Tribunal dated 09.02.1987 granting occupancy rights in favour of
the respondent – defendant was restored in respect of the suit
schedule property bearing Sy.No.1/1B measuring 1 acre 37 guntas
also. Subsequently, the plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit
seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession on the
ground that the order of the Land Tribunal and the Apex Court were
an outcome of fraud, collusion and misrepresentation, which would
vitiate the said proceedings and orders, as a result of which, the
plaintiff was entitled to be declared as the owner and recover
possession of the suit schedule property from the defendant.
4. The respondent – defendant contested the suit
interalia disputing and denying the various allegations and claim
made by the plaintiff and specifically contended that by virtue of the
order of the Land Tribunal dated 09.02.1987 conferring occupancy
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54818
RSA No. 2510 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010503412017
rights upon the defendant, which was upheld by the Apex Court in
Civil Appeal No.14615/1996 dated 18.11.1996, the defendant was
the sole and absolute owner in lawful and peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the suit schedule property over which plaintiff did not
have any right and his suit was liable to be dismissed. It was also
contended that the suit schedule property being tenanted land
stood vested with the State Government w.e.f. 01.03.1974 under
Section 44 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 and since the
plaintiff claimed to have purchased the suit schedule property on
02.07.1984 during the pendency of the proceedings before the
Land Tribunal, which ultimately culminated in favour of the
defendant as stated supra, the plaintiff did not acquire any manner
of right, title, interest or possession over the suit schedule property
under the aforesaid Sale Deed and as such, there was no merit in
the suit, which was liable to be dismissed.
5. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the Trial Court
framed the following issues:
(i) Does the plaintiff proves that the order of Land
tribunal dt:9.2.1987 and also order of the Supreme Court of
India dt.19.11.1996 are tenanted with fraud, collusion, mis-
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54818
RSA No. 2510 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010503412017
representation and abuse of process of law and as such they
are not sustainable under law?
(2) Does the plaintiff prove that he is the absolute
owner of the suit property, is entitled for the possession of
the same?
(3) Does the defendant prove that, order of Land
tribunal dt.9.2.1987 and also order of the Supreme Court of
India dt.19.11.1996 are binding upon the plaintiff?
(4) Does the defendant prove that this court has no
jurisdiction to entertain the suit in the present form?
(5) Does the plaintiff prove that he is entitled for
the enquiry into the mesne profits?
(6) Does the plaintiff prove that, he is entitled for
the relief sought?
(7) What Order or decree?
Additional Issues:
(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that alternatively he
is entitled for the declaration of his title as contended?
(2) Whether the plaintiff proves that the decision
passed by tribunal is not binding on him?
Issue Nos, 1 to 3 & Addl Issue No.2:
6. The plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and one
witness as PW2 and documentary evidence at Ex.P1 to P52 were
marked while defendant examined himself as DW1 and two
witnesses as DW2 and DW3 and documentary evidence at Ex.D1
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54818
RSA No. 2510 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010503412017
to D9 were marked on his behalf. By the impugned judgment and
decree, the Trial Court answered all issues against the plaintiff and
in favour of the defendant and proceeded to dismiss the suit by
holding as under:
“8. These issues are taken up together for the sake of
convenience and to avoid repetition of facts.
It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the defendant
had filed application for grant of occupancy rights of land
bearing Sy.No.90 measuring 20 guntas of Bellambari village
and defendant has not filed application in respect of
Sy.No.1/1 measuring 3 acres 4 guntas of Bellambari village
and Sy.No.1/1 was belonged to C.H. Shanthakumar, a
divided brother of C.H. Narayanaswamy and the said
Shantha kumar sold the said Sy.No.1/1 in his favour under a
registered sale deed dated 2.7.1984 and the possession was
also delivered in his favour, and said Shanthakumar had not
given said land for cultivation to any tenant. He further
contended that the land Tribunal, Kolar, dismissed the
application of defendant on 6.10.1981, and, as per the order
of Writ Petition No.2975/1982 the matter was remanded for
fresh disposal and the Land Tribunal, Kolar, granted
occupancy right in respect to suit Sy.No.1/1B measuring 1
acre 36 guntas in favour of defendant without following any
procedure, and, the Tribunal has stated in the order that 3
landlords had consented that the 26 persons were cultivating
their respective land, and, therefore, 3 landlords & 26
persons practiced fraud on the tribunal and made
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54818
RSA No. 2510 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010503412017
misrepresentation with respect to the lands and induced the
tribunal to believe that defendant filed application in Form
No.7 in respect of Sy.No.1/1B and six other lands. He further
contended that it is very clear that the so called joint
statement and consent of alleged landlords, has been
induced the tribunal to believe that there was no objection
and thereby the land tribunal prevented from acting in
accordance with law, and, the order of land Tribunal & the
order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India have been
obtained by the defendant by playing fraud, collusion,
misrepresentation and abuse of process of law and
supperessio veri and suggestio falsi.
9. The P.A. Holder of plaintiff as P.W.1 stated that the
suit schedule property measuring 3 acres 4 guntas was
earlier belonged to Jodidar C.H. Venkataramanappa and
subsequently during his lifetime, the said
C.H.Venkataramanappa was given his property under
partition to his children and the suit survey No.1/1 fallen to
Shantha Kumar, and the said Shantha Kumar or his father
Venkataravanappa was not given suit Sy.No.1/1 in favour of
any person under lease and his father was purchased the
suit schedule property from said Shantha Kumar and at the
time of purchase, no application for grant of occupancy right
was pending in respect of suit schedule property and no
survey number bearing Sy.No.1/1B has been in existence,
and subsequently, the katha was mutated in the name of his
father & nobody objected and the proceedings from the Land
tribunal to Hon'ble Supreme Court were held in respect of
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54818
RSA No. 2510 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010503412017
Sy.No.1/1B measuring 1 acre 37 guntas and as suit survey
number has not included in the order of Land Tribunal nor
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, no order was made in
respect of suit schedule property.
10. In the Cross-examination he stated that the
property of C.H. Venkataravanappa was granted in favour of
defendant and 1 acre 37 guntas in Sy.No.1/1B was granted
to defendant. He also admitted that proceedings in
LRF.No.1198/74-75 was in respect of the properties of
C.H.Venkataravanappa and the Land tribunal ordered to
survey some of lands in the said proceedings. But he denied
that as per order of land Tribunal, survey authority visited the
spot and given Sy.No.1/1B. But he admitted that against the
grant of occupancy right, his father preferred an appeal and
said appeal was allowed, and, against said order, the
defendant preferred an appeal before Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka and the said appeal was dismissed, and, the
defendant challenged the order of Hon'ble High Court, before
Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court confirmed
the order of the Land Tribunal and set aside the order of
Hon'ble High Court, and, the Order of Hon'ble Supreme
Court is not set aside and against the order of Hon'ble
Supreme Court a Revision petition was filed. He also stated
that the suit schedule property allotted to Shantha Kumar
under partition from his father and he has produced the
partition deed. But he has not placed said partition deed. No
doubt, the plaintiff has placed the certified copy of sale deed
dated 2.7.1984 at Ex.P27. The PW1 also placed the Special
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54818
RSA No. 2510 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010503412017
Power of Attorney executed by his father. The Ex.P2 to
Ex.P9, Ex.P29 to Ex.P31 are the RTC extracts in respect of
suit schedule property. Ex.P2 to Ex.P5 are the RTC extracts
for the year 1970-1986. On perusal, it could be seen that the
name of C.H. Venkataravanappa is appearing for the years
1972 to 1983 and 1983 to 1984 the name of
C.H.Venkataravanappa rounded of and in said place the
name of Shantha Kumar is appearing for the year 1984-85
and for 1985-86 the name of B. Narayanappa is appearing.
The Ex.P6 is for the year 1986 to 1992. The Ex.P7 is for the
year 1992 to 1996 and Ex.P2 is for the year 1996-97 and
Ex.P8 is for the year 1997-98, Ex.P9 is for the year 1996 to
1999. The name of plaintiff is appearing in Ex.P6 to 9.
Hence, as per the above RTC extract it could very clear that
during 1970-71 to 1980, the name of C.H.Venkataravanappa
is forthcoming in the RTC extracts.
11. According to plaintiff, the defendant has not filed
Form No.7 in respect of suit schedule property and he has
filed Form No.7 in respect of Sy.No.90 measuring 20 guntas
of Bellembari village. In support of his contention, the plaintiff
placed copy of Form No.7 stated to be filed by defendant in
respect of Sy.No.90 of Bellambari village at Ex.P26. The said
document is torned in the middle and it has pasted with
plastic. No doubt, the said Ex.P26 discloses that the
C.H.Venkataravanappa was a Landlord and Krishnappa S/o
Narayanappa i.e., defendant filed Form No.7 in respect of
Sy.No.90 measuring 20 guntas and Sy.Nos.116 measuring 1
acre of Bellambari village. The plaintiff had got summoned
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54818
RSA No. 2510 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010503412017
entire records from the Land tribunal in respect of the
proceedings at Ex.P36. But the said entire file Ex.P36 does
not have the Form No.7 filed by the defendant. Whether
Ex.P26 was filed by defendant could not, hence, be said in
view of the non-availability of copy of it in Ex.P36 and Ex.P26
being a torned document. Ex.P36 discloses that the
defendant was granted Sy.Nos.1/18 measuring 1 acre 37
guntas, 98 measuring 9 guntas, 97/7 measuring 6 guntas,
97/2 measuring 24 guntas, 110/1 measuring 6 guntas, 111/6
measuring 10 guntas, 111/9 measuring 13 guntas and in this
way total 26 members were granted under the said
proceedings and the C.H.Narayanaswamy S/o
Venkataravanappa and the P.A. Holder of the said
Narayanaswamy, C.H.Hanumappa were present and given
statement that 26 tenants were cultivating the land as per the
survey sketch, and, there was no objection to grant in their
favour and C.H. Venkataravanappa was died at that time and
the tenants were cultivating the said land. The said
proceedings also contains sketch prepared in respect of suit
Sy.No.1/1 and the said sketch also shows the existences of
Sy. No.1/1B in Sy. No.1/1. Moreover, it could also be seen
from Ex.P36 that the surveyor was surveyed the land as per
direction of Hon'ble High Court in Writ petition and as per the
possession of concerned persons. Hence, it could very clear
that the survey authorities measured the property prior to the
order of Land tribunal and prepared sketch and given a
Sy.No.1/1B and thereafter recording statements of landlord,
the Land Tribunal granted Sy.No.1/1B measuring 1 acre 37
guntas out of suit Sy.No.1/1 in favour of defendant. It is also
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54818
RSA No. 2510 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010503412017
true that against the said order, the plaintiff herein preferred
an appeal before District Land Reforms Appellate Authority
In DLRZ No.39/87. The said appeal was allowed and the
order of the Land Tribunal dated 9.2.1987 passed in LRF
1198/74 in so far as it relates to Sy.No.1/1B measuring 1
acre 37 guntas of land in favour of defendant herein has set
aside. It is also true that aggrieved by the order of the
Hon'ble District Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Kolar, the
defendant preferred Revision petition before Hon'ble High
Court of Karnataka and the said Revision petition also
dismissed. Ex.P34 is the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Hence, it is true that the defendant preferred Special Leave
to appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the said
order of Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court
allowed appeal and set aside the order of the appellate
Authority and also of the Hon'ble High Court and restored the
order of tribunal, and the Civil Review petition against the
said order also dismissed. Hence, it is very clear that the
order of Tribunal granting occupancy right in respect of
Sy.No.1/1B measuring 1.37 guntas in favour of defendant
reached finality as per the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court.
12. The learned counsel for plaintiff argued that the
plaintiff was purchased suit schedule property from Shantha
Kumar under a registered sale deed date 2.7.1984 and the
said Shantha Kumar was a divided brother of
C.H.Narayanaswamy & another, and, the suit schedule
property was allotted to Shantha Kumar under a partition and
the said Shantha Kumar was not given suit schedule
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54818
RSA No. 2510 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010503412017
property in favour of any person for lease and no Sy.No.1/1B
at Bellambari village is in existence and a hypothetical
survey number is granted in favour of defendant, and, on the
guise of said order, the defendant encroached the portion of
suit schedule property and the defendant has been in illegal
possession of a portion of suit schedule property and the
order of tribunal was obtained by playing fraud, collusion and
misrepresentation, and, the C.H.Venkataravanappa was not
alive at the time of alleged grant and the alleged landlords
had no right over the suit schedule property to give consent
and thereby the tribunal induced to believe that there is no
objection and hence, the said order of Land tribunal and
subsequently the order of Hon'ble Supreme court are not
binding on the plaintiff and the suit schedule property and
Sy.No.1/1B are different survey numbers.
13. Though, plaintiff has averred that the order of
Land Tribunal and the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court were
obtained playing fraud, misrepresentation, collusion and
abuse of process of law, P.W.1 has not stated the said fact in
his chief-examination. The Order 6 Rule 4 provides that in all
cases in which the party pleading relies on any
misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, willful default or
undue influence, and in all other cases in which particulars
may be necessary beyond such as are exemplified in the
forms, particulars with dates and item if necessary shall be
stated in the pleading. Hence, the said facts of fraud,
misrepresentation, collusion are to be separately and
independently pleaded with specificity, particularity &
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54818
RSA No. 2510 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010503412017
precision in view of Order 6 Rule 4. In the instant case, it is
very clear the pleading in respect of fraud, misrepresentation
and collusion are not pleaded with specificity, particularity
and precision. Moreover, P.W.1 has, also, not whispered
anything regarding fraud, misrepresentation and collusion.
14. The contention of the learned counsel for plaintiff
that there is no order to sub-divide Sy.No.1/1 into Sy.No.1/1B
etc and hence, no Sy.No.1/1B is in existence at Bellambary
Village. But as observed In Ex.P36, It is very clear that on
the order of the Tribunal, the survey authorities measured
Sy.No.1/1 and the portion of land in Sy.No.1/1 In possession
of defendant has shown as Sy.No.1/1B in sketch and Land
Tribunal was also granted the Sy.No.1/1B measuring 1 acre
37 guntas in favour of defendant. Moreover, the
C.H.Ramachandrappa, C.H.Narayanaswamy were present
before the Tribunal and agreed that the defendant and other
25 members were cultivating the land and consented to grant
respective land in their favour and their signatures also found
place in the order of the Tribunal. Even for the sake of
arguments, it is taken that the defendant has filed Form No.7
in respect of other survey numbers and he has not filed in
respect of suit survey number, it is very clear that the
defendant being a villager could not identify the survey
number. The Rural village people are unacquainted with the
survey number and they are normally indulging In the
agricultural operation only. Hence, we cannot expect the
precise survey number which has to be written in the
application filed by them. In order to find out in which
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54818
RSA No. 2510 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010503412017
property, the defendant and others were cultivating as a
tenant, the Land Tribunal, as per the direction of Hon'ble
High Court directed the survey authority to measure the suit
schedule property and after measuring the properties
cultivating by the tenants, the survey authority prepared
survey sketch and placed before the tribunal and on the
basis of survey sketch, the land tribunal has rightly granted
the suit Sy.No.1/1B measuring 1 acre 37 guntas in favour of
defendant.
15. Moreover, the defendant has placed the order of
Hon'ble High court of Karnataka in writ petition Nos.2954 to
2977/1982 at Ex.D9. In the said Writ petition, the defendant
is one of the petitioner, and, C.H.Venkataravanappa,
Chairman of Land Tribunal, Kolar and State of Karnataka are
the respondents. The para 5 of the said order of the Hon'ble
High Court i.e., Ex.D9 reads as under:
"When the matter came up for enquiry before the
tribunal, respondent No.1 took objection to the survey
numbers mentioned in the applications of the
petitioners, by saying that the petitioners were
cultivating lands in some other different numbers and
not in the numbers as mentioned in their respective
applications. Immediately, thereafter the petitioners
requested the tribunal to get the land surveyed and
identified with reference to their respective survey
numbers under the cultivation of the petitioners. The
Tribunal, accordingly, after giving proper notices to all
the parties concerned, got the lands measured and
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54818
RSA No. 2510 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010503412017
identified by their real survey numbers which had
been personally cultivated by the petitioners as
tenants. The tribunal also allowed the petitioners to
amend the survey numbers in the applications filed
by them and even at that stage respondent no.1 did
not question the amendments made by the
petitioners. In the circumstances, the case of the
petitioners is that the impugned orders without
reference to the amendment of their applications in
form No.7 which were not objected to by respondent
No.1 are liable to be quashed."
16. In the said writ petitions, C.H.Venkataravanappa is
st
the 1 respondent. In this way the Hon'ble High Court
allowed the petitions and quashed the impugned order and
remitted the matter to Land tribunal for fresh disposal of
applications of the petitioners after holding a fresh enquiry.
Hence, subsequently, the tribunal conducted fresh enquiry
and granted Sy.No.1/1B measuring 1 acre 37 guntas in
favour of defendant.
17. According to plaintiff, he has purchased the suit
schedule property from Shantha Kumar under a registered
sale deed dated 2.7.1984 and hence he is the absolute
owner of the suit schedule property. As per Sec. 44 of
Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1961, lands held by or in the
possession of the tenants immediately prior to the date of
commencement of Amendment Act shall stand transferred to
and vest in the State Government with effect on and from the
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54818
RSA No. 2510 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010503412017
said date. The date of commencement of the Amendment
Act came with effect from 1.3.1974. The RTC extract reflects
the name of C.H. Venkataravanappa during 1974. Moreover,
he was alive during that period. Moreover after his death, his
legal heirs appeared and consented to the grant. Hence, the
order of Land Tribunal establishes that the defendant was
cultivating the land personally during the said periods.
Hence, the land stands transferred to and vests in the State
Government. Hence after vesting of tenanted land i.e. suit
survey number the Shantha Kumar has no right to alienate
the same in favour of plaintiff. Moreover, though plaintiff
contended that under partition suit schedule property was
allotted to Shantha Kumar, he has not stated when the
partition took place. He has not produced any document to
substantiate said contention, though P.W.1 has stated that
there is a document of partition.
18. As observed above, the order of Land tribunal that
the grant of suit Sy.No.1/1B measuring 1 acre 37 guntas out
of entire suit schedule property in favour of defendant is
upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. In this way,
the order of Land tribunal granting occupancy rights in favour
of defendant in respect of Sy.No.1/1B measuring 1 acre 37
guntas is reached finality. Whether the defendant is a tenant
or not in respect of said property could be decided only by
the tribunal. This Court has no jurisdiction. Moreover, prior to
grant of the occupancy rights in favour of defendant, the
Tribunal through the survey authorities measured and
identified the land and out of suit Sy.No.1/1, the survey
- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54818
RSA No. 2510 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010503412017
authorities have mentioned that the defendant has been
cultivating 1 acre 37 guntas and given his cultivating land as
survey No.1/1B. The said giving of number is only for
identification purpose. Hence, the giving of Sy.No.1/1B in
respect of land cultivating by defendant as a tenant cannot
be found fault with. Moreover, it could also be very clear that
the land in Sy.No1/1B measuring 1 acre 37 guntas is a part
of suit schedule property.
19. The learned counsel for plaintiff argued that the
C.H. Venkataravanappa and Shantha Kumar were died prior
to the grant and hence the order of Land Tribunal has got no
sanctity. But the plaintiff has not placed death certificate of
Shantha Kumar. However, the plaintiff has placed the death
certificate of C.H. Venkataravanappa at Ex.P52. It discloses
that the C.H. Venkataravanappa was died on 22.9.1984. No
doubt, it is true that the Land Tribunal granted the suit
Sy.No.1/1B 9.2.1987 i.e., after the death of
C.H.Venkataravanappa. But Ex.D9 discloses that the earlier
to said grant, the said deceased C.H. Venkataravanappa
objected the survey number mentioned in the application of
tenants by saying that the tenants were cultivating lands in
some other different numbers and on subsequently, the
survey numbers were amended and the
C.H.Venkataramappa has not questioned the amendments,
The order stated in Ex.D9 was made on 14.8.1984 i.e., one
month prior to the death of C.H. Venkataravanappa.
Moreover, Ex. P36 discloses that the tenants have stated
before the Tribunal that the C.H.Venkataravanappa was
- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54818
RSA No. 2510 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010503412017
died, and, C.H. Narayanaswamy & CH. Hanumappa were
signed the land tribunal order and consented the possession
of tenants. Moreover, the C.H. Venkataravanappa has not
stated before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka that the
suit schedule property was allotted to his son Shantha
Kumar under partition. Hence, there is no merit in the
arguments that without the presence of legal heirs of the
C.H. Venkataravanappa order of tribunal was passed.
Consequently, I answer issue Nos.1 & 2 in the negative,
issue No.3 in the affirmative and additional issue No.2 in the
negative.
Issue No.4:
20. After treating this issue, as a preliminary issue,
this Court comes to the conclusion that this court has no
jurisdiction to entertain this suit on 15.3.2003 and rejected
the plaint. Subsequently, the plaintiff preferred an appeal
nd
before the Hon'ble 2 Addl. District and Sessions Judge,
Kolar, and the said appeal was allowed and the Hon'ble II
Addl. District Court has held that without affording such an
opportunity to the plaintiff, the suit cannot be decided only on
the point of jurisdiction and Civil Court is competent to
entertain the suit in the present form. In view of the judgment
and decree of Hon'ble II Addl. District and Sessions Judge,
Kolar, I am of the considered opinion that this Court has
jurisdiction to entertain the suit in the present form.
Consequently, I answer issue No.4 in the negative.
- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54818
RSA No. 2510 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010503412017
Issue No.5:
21. In view of the negative findings on issue Nos.1 to
3, I am of the considered opinion that the plaintiff is not
entitled to enquiry into the mesne profits. Consequently, I
answer issue No.5 in the. negative.
Issue No.6:
22. The plaintiff has failed to prove that he is the
absolute owner of entire suit schedule property. As the
defendant has granted land measuring 1 acre 37 guntas out
of suit schedule property and the said grant has confirmed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is very clear that the
defendant is the owner of 1 acre 37 guntas out of the suit
schedule property. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled to
possession of the said 1 acre 37 guntas from defendant.
Consequently, I answer issue No.6 in the negative.
Additional issue No.1:
23. In view of negative findings on Issue No.2, I
answer additional issue No.1 in the negative.
Issue No.7:
23. In view of my findings on the above issues, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with costs.
Draw decree accordingly.”
- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54818
RSA No. 2510 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010503412017
7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree of the
Trial Court, the appellant – plaintiff filed the aforesaid appeal in
R.A.No.36/2013, which was also dismissed by the First Appellate
Court by holding as under:
“6. The points that arise for consideration are;
1. Whether the Appellant proves the alleged
interference as set out in the appeal memorandum ?
2. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial
Court is capricious, perverse and illegal?
3. Whether the judgment and decree of the trial Court
needs interference?
4. To what relief and decree the parties are entitled for?
7. The findings on the above Points are as follows:-
Points No.1 to 3 : In the Negative.
Point No.4 : As per the final order, for the following:-
REASONS
Points No.1 to 3:-
08. These points are taken up
together for discussion in order to avoid the repetition of
facts and in order to avoid inconvenience the parties of this
case will referred to their own ranking so as to their ranking
before lower court.
The plaintiff herein brought this suit with his specific plea
that the defendant has filed application for grant of
- 23 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54818
RSA No. 2510 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010503412017
occupancy rights with respect to Sy.No.90 of Bellambari
village to an extent of 20 guntas but he has not filed
application with respect to the suit property and the suit
property originally belongs to C.H.Shanthakumar who is the
divided brother of C.H.Venkataravanappa and he sold out
the same under registered sale deed dtd.02.07.1984 and
also delivered the possession and the said property was
never subjected for alienation and the application filed by
the defendant has been dismissed by the tribunal Kolar
dtd.06.10.1981 and as per the order in W.P.2975/1982 the
matter has been remanded for fresh disposal after that the
tribunal had granted in favour of the defendant without
following the procedures as it is induced the tribunal to
believe that the defendant had filed application in the form
No.7 with respect to Sy.No.1/1B including six other
properties and fraudulently obtained the orders in his favour
and the same was also challenged before several forum
and matter went up to Supreme court where the defendant
succeeded to get the order in his favour by playing fraud
collusion, misrepresentation by suppressing the material
facts, as such there is no land like Sy.No.1/1B situated at
Bellambari village and in view of the same the order passed
by the tribunal and order of Supreme court are not binding
on the plaintiff, consequently he is the owner of the suit
property and the suit of the plaintiff also resisted by the
defendant by way of filing written statement and he has
admits the proceedings before the land tribunal, before the
District land reforms, Hon'ble High court and Hon'ble
Supreme court and contended that the order of tribunal
- 24 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54818
RSA No. 2510 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010503412017
dtd.09.02.1987 and order of Hon'ble Supreme court
dtd.19.11.1996 attained finality and suit in not maintainable.
9. Based upon pleadings the court below framed
necessary issues and after conclusion of trial answered
issue No.1, 2, 5 and 6 and additional issue No.1 and 2 in
the negative, issue No.3 in the affirmative and issue No.4 in
the negative, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree
of the lower court the appellant brought the present appeal.
10. It is forthcoming from perusal of the lower court
record that the plaintiff in order to prove his case he himself
got examined as PW-1 and also got marked as 52
documents as Ex.P-1 to 52 and the defendant also got
examined as DW-1 and 9 documents as Ex.D-1 to 9 got
marked and he further got examined two more witnesses as
DW-2 and 3 and the main grievance of the plaintiff is that
the order of land tribunal dtd.09.02.1987 and order of the
Hon'ble Supreme court dtd.19.11.1996 are tenanted with
fraud collusion misrepresentation, as such the plaintiff is
heavily burdened to prove the same and the lower court
record also reveals that the plaintiff had summoned the
entire file maintained by the land tribunal in respect of the
proceedings which got marked as Ex.P-36 and Ex.P-37 is
the order of district land reforms appellate authority herein,
as we know these documents being the public documents
secured with the presumptions available under section 74
r/w 35 as the same are maintained during the official course
of business, as such before going through the said
documents it is just and necessary to consider the
- 25 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54818
RSA No. 2510 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010503412017
presumptions available in favour of these documents,
further it is noticed that the application filed by the
defendant seeking confirmation of tenancy right was
rejected by the land tribunal on 16.10.1981 and against the
same the defendant preferred appeal in writ petition in
2951-2952/1982 before Hon'ble high court and Hon'ble high
court dtd 14-08-1984 has remanded the matter for denova
trial and also ordered to conduct the survey to get identify
the lands of the tenants who have been filed applications
along with the defendant, accordingly Ex.P-36 the entire
records of the land tribunal discloses that the survey has
been conducted by following all the procedures and finally
the order has been passed by accepting the amendment
application filed by the defendant in his favour and land
bearing Sy.No.1/1B granted in favour of the defendant by
confirming the tenancy right in his favour, as such when the
plaintiff built up his case by alleging that no such land
Sy.No.1/1B existed obviously he has to prove the same by
placing convincing materials and herein though he has not
produced any documents to show non existence of the
above said land whereas, on the other hand defendant had
produced the documents and it is also crucial to note that
the documents summoned by the plaintiff itself shows that
the survey have been conducted and after the survey
proceedings which was not at all challenged at any point of
time, tenancy right has been confirmed in favour of
defendant and it is also true that there is no form No.7 filed
with respect to survey land bearing No.1/1B but at same
time it also true that the tribunal permitted the defendant to
- 26 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54818
RSA No. 2510 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010503412017
amend the applications accordingly after such amendment
finally defendant has been granted the above said land as
per order dtd.09.02.1987 as per Ex-P38 which was assailed
by DLRAA as per Ex-P37 and finally confirmed by Hon'ble
Supreme court as per Ex-P34, it is also crucial to note that
the plaintiff who claimed that no such property is existed, he
never resisted the amendment application filed by the
defendant which leads to draw an adverse inference against
him as he kept silent and all these aspect was rightly
considered by the court below.
11. Apart from that the lower court also considered that
there is no proper pleading as necessary under provision 6
rule 4 of CPC with respect to fraud collusion
misrepresentation as the plaintiff is not specific with his
pleading about the such allegations like fraud,
misrepresentation and collusion and he simply pleaded that
the said orders have been obtained by playing fraud,
therefore from the aforesaid discussion which made it clear
that the land tribunal after remanding of the matter had
conducted an fresh trial and also conducted survey
proceedings thereafter, considering all the aspects granted
the land bearing Sy.No.1/1B to an extent of 1 acre 37
guntas in favour of the defendant therefore the order of the
land tribunal which has been passed by the competitive
jurisdictional authority and the said order was upheld by the
Hon'ble Apex court, therefore under these circumstances
the plaintiff cannot claim that the said both orders were
obtained by the defendant by playing fraud as such the
- 27 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54818
RSA No. 2510 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010503412017
court below rightly answered issue No.1 in the negative and
issue No.3 in the affirmative.
12. Further, it is also urged by the counsel for the
plaintiff that the plaintiff had purchased the suit property
under registered sale deed dtd.12.07.1984 from one
C.H.Shanthakumar who is the divided brother
C.H.Narayanaswamy Venkataramanappa and the suit
property has been fallen to the share of his vendor by way
of family partition and after the purchase he is in continuous
possession and enjoyment of the suit property and no doubt
in proof of the said fact he relied upon the registered sale
deed which got marked as Ex.P-27 and further he relied
upon Ex.P-2 to 5 the RTC extract with respect to the suit
property in the year 1970-86 originally stands in the name of
C.H.Venkataramanappa and it is also crucial to note that in
the year 1983-84 column No.9 was rounded off the name of
the Shantha kumar the vendor of the plaintiff and Ex.P-6 to
9 the RTC extract stands in the name of plaintiff and before
taking discussion with respect to the title of the suit
property, it is just and necessary to concentrate on well
settled preposition of law that the title of any of the property
cannot be declared based upon the revenue documents
and one who wants to prove his title he has to prove the
source of acquiring title and herein, no doubt the plaintiff in
proof of his title he got marked as Ex.P-27 which is the
registered sale deed and it is also true that the sanctity of
the registered document cannot be doubted unless contrary
evidence is offered.
- 28 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54818
RSA No. 2510 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010503412017
13. Herein, it is the specific contention of the plaintiff
that the property has fallen to the share of his vendor in the
family partition thereafter he sold out the same in his favour
and in proof of the said fact except relying upon the Ex.P-27
the sale deed and the revenue documents the plaintiff not at
all offered any documentary or oral evidence to prove the
partition and though it has been contended that his vendor
had got the suit property under partition deed whereas, the
said partition deed not at all is in cart & as rightly considered
by the court below the plaintiff has not whispered about the
family partition which said to be effected in between the
family members original owner C.H.Venkataramanappa the
jodidar and his brother C.H.Shanthakumar the vendor of the
plaintiff, apart from that as considered by the lower court as
per the Karnataka land reform act section 44 all the land
and all the tenant land vested with the Government on
01.03.1974 when the land already vested with the
government the registered sale deed which has been came
in the existence in the year 1984 certainly discloses that the
vendor of the plaintiff has no salable right with respect to the
suit property further it is also true that the revenue
documents which placed by the plaintiff carries presumptive
value under section 133 of KLR Act whereas, the said
presumption is also rebutable presumption as such the
registered sale deed i.e., Ex.P-27 has no evidentiary value
in the eye of law as the same does not confer the title of the
suit property in favour of plaintiff and as already discussed
though some of the revenue documents i.e., RTC extract
shows the name of the vendor of the plaintiff as well as
- 29 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54818
RSA No. 2510 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010503412017
same in the name of plaintiff whereas, this being the suit for
declaration of title, the same cannot be declared on the
basis of the revenue entries which only shows the
possession and it is well settled principles of law that the
possession follows the title therefore under these
circumstances I am of the opinion that as rightly considered
by the court below plaintiff is not able to prove his title over
the suit property and accordingly the court below properly
appreciated and analysed all the oral as well as
documentary evidence placed before it and rightly hold that
issue No.2, 5 and 6 in the negative and including issue No.1
and 2 in the negative, therefore the order of the Hon'ble
Supreme court i.e., Ex.P-34 which attains finality is binding
upon the plaintiff also as he fails to prove the non existence
of Sy.No.1/1B of the Bellambari village, Hence, I am of the
opinion that there is no need of interference with the lower
court judgment and decree. Hence I answered point No.1 to
3 in the negative.
14. Point No.4:- In view of the findings on the above
points, the following order is passed :-
ORDER
The appeal filed under Order 41 Rule 1 r/w
Sec. 151 of C.P.C. challenging the Judgment
and Decree passed in O.S.No.335/1997 on the
file of Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) & JMFC, at Kolar
is hereby dismissed with cost throughout.
- 30 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54818
RSA No. 2510 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010503412017
The Judgment and Decree passed in
O.S.No.335/1997 dtd.30.11.2012 is hereby
confirmed.
Draw decree accordingly.
Send the entire records in O.S.No.335/1997
along with copy of the Judgment passed in this
appeal to the Trial Court.”
8. A perusal of the impugned judgments and decrees of
both the Courts will indicate that both the Courts have considered
and appreciated the material on record, which clearly established
that the right, title, interest and possession of the defendant over
the suit schedule property was upheld by the Land Tribunal and
confirmed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.14615/1996 dated
18.11.1996, wherein it was held as under:
“ORDER
Special leave granted.
The Land Tribunal, Kolar by the order dated February 9,
1987 granted occupancy rights to the appellant. The cases of
26 tenants were decided by the same order. The operative part
of the order is as under:
"Case called out, applicants and land lords
Sri.C.H.Ramachandrappa, C.H. Hanumappa and
C.H.Narayanaswamy sons of Venkataramanappa are
present. There are 26 applicants and a joint statement
of all the applicants is taken. The land lords conceded
- 31 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54818
RSA No. 2510 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010503412017
this joint statement and hence it is proved that all the
above noted 26 applicants are in enjoyment and are
cultivating the lands as on 1.3.74 and prior to it.
According to S.45 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act,
these applicants are declared to be the occupants of the
lands of which the survey number and the extent
mentioned after their names."
The land in possession of the appellant is mentioned at
Item No.11, which is as under:
Krishnappa S/o Narayanappa 1/1 B 1.37
98/24 0.05
97/7 0.06
97/12 0.21
110/6 0.03
111/6 0.10
111/9 0.13
It is thus obvious that Survey No.1/1B measuring 1.37
acres is specifically mentioned in the order of the Tribunal. It is
further clear from the order quoted above that the landlords
conceded the right of the appellant for grant of occupancy
tenancy.
The respondent i.e., vendee from the original landlord.
He challenged the order of the Tribunal before the appellate
authority, The appellate authority set aside the order of the
Tribunal on the short ground that in the application for grant of
occupancy rights, the appellant had not mentioned Survey
No.1/1 B. The High Court upheld the order of the appellate
authority.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We are
of the view that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of
- 32 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54818
RSA No. 2510 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010503412017
the case specially that the order before the Tribunal was an
agreed order and the Tribunal specifically mentioned Survey
No.1/1B in its order, the appellate authority was wholly
unjustified in denying the appellant his right to be declared as
occupancy tenant. There is enough material on the record to
show that the appellant is in possession of the land in dispute
for the last more than three decades.
We allow the appeal, set aside the order of the
appellate authority and also of the High Court and restore that
of the Tribunal. No costs.”
9. As can be seen from the aforesaid order of the Apex
Court, in the said appeal filed by the defendant, the Apex Court set
aside the orders of the Appellate Authority and the orders passed
by this Court in LRRP No.2915/1988 and restored the order of the
Land Tribunal, which had granted occupancy rights in favour of the
respondent – defendant in respect of the suit schedule property.
Both the Courts also took note of the fact that since the alleged
Sale Deed dated 02.07.1984 was said to have been executed in
favour of the appellant during the pendency of the proceedings
before the Land Tribunal, the said Sale Deed was subject to the
final outcome of the said proceedings, which had culminated finally
/ ultimately in favour of the defendant before the Apex Court and
- 33 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54818
RSA No. 2510 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010503412017
the said orders had attained finality and become conclusive and
binding upon the appellant, who was one of the parties to the said
proceedings. Both the Courts also recorded categorical findings of
fact that the plaintiff had not put-forth necessary / material
particulars and details as regards fraud, misrepresentation and
collusion as alleged by him and the said bald and vague allegations
had not been established in accordance with law. Under these
circumstances, both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court
correctly and properly considered and appreciated the entire
material on record and recorded categorical findings of fact that the
plaintiff did not have any manner of right, title, interest or
possession over the suit schedule property, which was owned and
possessed absolutely by the defendant and accordingly, proceeded
to reject the claim of the plaintiff and uphold the claim of the
defendant by passing the impugned judgment and decree, which
cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity nor can the
same be said to be capricious or perverse warranting interference
by this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 100 of
the Code of Civil Procedure. Under these circumstances, I do not
- 34 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54818
RSA No. 2510 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010503412017
find any merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed at the
stage of admission itself.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
BMC / SV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47